Science Disproves Evolution

[Pahu]

So you can't explain why liquefaction made a strata of quartz? I bet Brown can't either.

You lose:

Near the end of the flood, the compression event crushed and fractured rock, producing additional electrical discharges. Hot SCW (held in the spongelike voids in the lower crust) and 222Rn (an inert gas produced in plasma channels) were forced up through these channels and fractures. As the mineral-rich water rose hours and days later, its pressure and temperature dropped, so minerals such as biotite and fluorite began forming in the channels. Wormlike myrmekite also formed as quartz and feldspars precipitated in the thin, threadlike channels “drilled” by the powerful electrical discharges and by SCW (a penetrating solvent).

[From "In the Beginning" by Walt Brown http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/Radioactivity5.html#wp1660795]

Before the flood, SCW dissolved granite’s more soluble components, such as quartz and feldspars, giving the lower crust a spongelike texture. During the compression event, high-pressure fluids that had filled those spongelike voids were injected up into fractures in the earth’s crust. As the hydrothermal fluids rose, their pressures and temperatures dropped, so quartz and feldspars came out of solution and sometimes grew large crystals called pegmatites. This also explains the origin of most mineral-rich, hydrothermal fluids and most of earth’s ore bodies.

[From "In the Beginning" by Walt Brown http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/Radioactivity6.html#wp1661231]

Before the flood, SCW easily dissolved certain minerals in granite (such as quartz and feldspars). During the flood, those hot solutions filled the extremely thin, nearly parallel channels that extended up from the subterranean chamber. After the flood, those solutions rose, evaporated, and cooled, while quartz and feldspars precipitated in some of those channels, becoming myrmekite.

[From "In the Beginning" by Walt Brown
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/Radioactivity5.html#wp2658238]

 

[Pahu]

I see you can't provide relevant quotes from people. Evasion noted.

They are found in the links provided. Denial noted!

 

[Pahu]

You don't understand thermodynamics, refrigerators create more heat than they remove from the cooling compartment. Therefore they do not reduce entropy.

Life creates a huge amount of entropy, there is no 'reversal of entropy', what do you think digestion and metabolism are?

Where did your food come from? How did it get there? What happened when you ate it?

Your analogies don't address thermodynamics. The fridge is receiving power from outside. Living organisms are created to digest food, etc.

The Second Law states: Every system, left to its own devices, always tends to move from order to disorder, its energy tending to be transformed into lower levels of availability (for work), ultimately becoming totally random and unavailable for work.
...or...
The entropy of a closed system cannot decrease.

The second law presents an insurmountable problem to the concept of a natural, mechanistic process: (1) by which the physical universe could have formed spontaneously from nothing, and (2) by which biological life could have arisen and diversified (also spontaneously) from a non-living, inanimate world. (Both postulates form essential planks in the platform of evolutionary theory in general.)

For details go here: http://www.trueorigin.org/steiger.asp

 

[Marduk]

when are you going to answer the questions I have asked you repeatedly Pahu ?
you are just being evasive because your faith is lacking in answers aren't you, thats why you'd rather believe in fairy stories than the truth. You may think you're making valid arguments here but everyone can see how hopeless your position is and how stupid your replies are. You've got nothing and are intellectually bankrupt

They are found in the links provided. Denial noted!

you were asked a question and were unable to answer it, your claim of denial is both irrelevant and laughable

 

[Jack by the hedge]

They are found in the links provided. Denial noted!

That is useless. If there are quotes within your links which you believe could be interpreted to be in support of your position, then you need to explain which and why, otherwise you have nothing.

 

[Pahu]

Now there's an oxymoron if I ever saw one... Pray tell, Pahu, what is scientific about creationism? What predictions does it make? Is it falsifiable?

*crickets* ... *crickets*

Oh, no predictions? Can't test any of it? It's just about rehashing fallacious arguments that have been debunked long ago? In that case, kindly refrain from referring to champions of ignorance and dishonesty as scientists. Thanks.

Science is a field of study seeking to better understand natural phenomena through the use of observations and experiments. Scientific conclusions, while never final, must be based on evidence.

Also, the source of a scientific idea does not need to be scientifically derived. For example, Friedrich Kekulé discovered the ring structure of benzene in a dream in which a snake grabbed its tail. Kekulé’s discovery laid the basis for structural chemistry. Again, what is important is not the source of an idea, but whether all evidence supports it better than any other explanation. Science, after all, is a search for truth about how the physical universe behaves. Therefore, let’s teach all the science.

[From "In the Beginning" by Walt Brown http://www.crea]tionscience.com/onlinebook/FAQ12.html#wp2727001

 

[Pahu]

Was There Room?

Could the Ark have held all the animals? Easily. A few humans, some perhaps hired by others, could build a boat (a) large enough to hold representatives of every air-breathing land animal—perhaps 16,000 animals in all. (Of course, sea creatures did not need to be on the Ark. Nor did insects or amphibians. Only mammals, birds, reptiles, and humans. Much plant life survived the flood in a surprisingly simple way (b)). The Ark, having at least 1,500,000 cubic feet of space, was adequate to hold these animals, their provisions, and all their other needs for one year (c).

Since the flood, many offspring of those on the Ark would have become reproductively isolated to some degree due to mutations, natural genetic variations, and geographic dispersion. Thus, variations within a kind have proliferated. Each variation or species we see today did not have to be on the Ark. For example, a pair of wolflike animals were probably ancestors of the coyotes, dingoes, jackals, and hundreds of varieties of domestic dogs. (This is microevolution, not macroevolution, because each member of the dog kind can interbreed and has the same organs and genetic structure.) Could the Ark have held dinosaurs and elephants? Certainly, if they were young.

The Ark is frequently depicted as a small boat by those who have not bothered to check its dimensions. It was 300 cubits long, 50 cubits wide, and 30 cubits tall. While there were several ancient cubits (generally the distance from a man’s elbow to the extended fingers), a cubit was typically 1.5 feet or slightly longer. The 500-foot-long Ark would snugly fit in a football stadium and would be taller than a four-story building.

The Ark did not look like a boat. It had a flat bottom, was not streamlined, and had windows in its top. The flat bottom would have made loading on dry land possible. Streamlined shapes are important only for ships designed for speed and fuel efficiency—neither of which applied to the Ark. Windows in the side might be nice for the passengers (or for the proverbial giraffes to stick their necks out), but side windows limit the depth of submergence and the maximum load. Riding low in the water gives a boat great stability.

a. Actually, the Hebrew word for Ark (tebah) does not mean boat. It means “box,” “chest,” or “coffin.” In the Bible, tebah occurs in only one other context besides the flood. (The “ark of the covenant” is a different Hebrew word.) Moses was saved as a baby in a pitch-covered ark, tebah (Exodus 2:3,5). Sometimes tebah is translated into a different English word, such as basket. Moses, perhaps acting as an editor, wrote the flood account. Do you suppose that Moses had a special interest in describing how a few people, his ancestors and ours, were saved in a tebah—as he was?

b. At the onset of the flood, the powerful fountains of the great deep scattered seeds and spores throughout and even above the atmosphere. They undoubtedly settled through the atmosphere for many months afterward. [See http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/HydroplateOverview2.html#wp1197621] Fortunately, the 46,000-mile-long fountains were at almost all latitudes. Had they followed an east-west (latitudinal) path, such as along the preflood equator, many plants we now have would have become extinct.

c. The most detailed study of the many logistical requirements for the Ark and the number of animals on board is by John Woodmorappe, Noah’s Ark: A Feasibility Study (El Cajon, California: Institute for Creation Research, 1996).

The Seemingly Impossible Events of a Worldwide Flood Are Credible, If Examined Closely.

[From “in the Beginning” by Walt Brown http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/EarthSciences18.html#wp1798250]

 

[Marduk]

In Brown's In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood he suggests evidence against evolution and for creation science and flood geology (including hydroplates). It is divided into three sections, the first of which explores discoveries made by scientists that Brown says do not fit the theory of evolution.[5] The second section outlines various alternate explanations to geological and astronomical subjects such as the mid-oceanic ridge and comets, which Brown asserts modern science cannot explain. The final section presents a variety of other questions encountered in the creation-evolution controversy.

In 1989, the Creation/Evolution journal of the National Center for Science Education published a critique of Brown's theory. Jim Lippard, graduate student of philosophy begins with a criticism focusing primarily on fossil evidence of human evolution.[6] Brown addressed several of Lippard's points in his response,[7] and three further articles were printed: Lippard,[8] Brown,[9] and ending with Lippard, where he asserts that Brown made serious errors, including using "mistaken claims about what others have written."[10] The series of articles does not discuss Brown's Hydroplate Theory, apart from Brown's claim that Lippard "dismisses or ignores the bulk of the book and specifically addresses only a very small fraction of its substance."[9]

Philosopher Robert T. Pennock describes Brown's position as being typical, other than the unique feature of his hydroplates hypothesis, of young-earth creationists in desiring to explain all major terrestrial features in terms of a catastrophic Biblical flood.[11]

TalkOrigins reports that Walt Brown has had contentious relations with other creationist organizations.[12][13] Answers in Genesis has a standing offer to Brown to publish some of his material in their journals[14] but Brown has declined.[13] The old earth creationist organization Answers in Creation has published material rebutting Brown's hydroplate theory.[15] The Christian American Scientific Affiliation website features a debunking of Brown's video "God's Power and Scriptures Authority" by Steven H. Schimmrich of Kutztown University.[16]

Brown also has repeatedly claimed that no "evolutionist" will engage in a written debate with him,[17] but has been accused of discouraging or avoiding such debates.[13][18][19] An abortive attempt at such a debate was held in 1989 and 1990 in the pages of Creation/Evolution, the National Center for Science Education journal, before Brown refused to continue.[10] Joe Meert of Gondwana Research, a journal promoting research related to the origin and evolution of continents, had a supposed signed contract for such a debate with Walter Brown in 2000. It has been said Brown disputed the terms of the signed contract and it did not take place.[20] Brown has mentioned on his website that the actual reason for the debate not taking place was that the debater wanted to add religion and since Dr. Brown is not a theologian, he wanted the debate to be strictly science.[21] According to Georgia State University biology professor Fred K. Parrish, who was "tricked" into an April 1985 public debate with Brown, Brown debates around the U.S. and has a set of preconditions (such as Brown speaks first, the debate moderator sits on his side, etc.).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walt_Brown_(creationist)#Claims_and_criticism
I posted this earlier
Pahus response
None

 

[nescafe]

Your analogies don't address thermodynamics. The fridge is receiving power from outside. Living organisms are created to digest food, etc.

The Second Law states: Every system, left to its own devices, always tends to move from order to disorder, its energy tending to be transformed into lower levels of availability (for work), ultimately becoming totally random and unavailable for work.
...or...
The entropy of a closed system cannot decrease.

I smell fail.

The second law presents an insurmountable problem to the concept of a natural, mechanistic process: (1) by which the physical universe could have formed spontaneously from nothing,

What makes you think the Universe formed "from nothing"?

and (2) by which biological life could have arisen and diversified (also spontaneously) from a non-living, inanimate world.

Except that our world is not a closed system. There is a gigantic incandescent ball of plasma which is constantly radiating power to our little ball of dirt, and a huge, cold void where we conveniently radiate waste heat. You may have noticed these objects if you have ever been outside.

(Both postulates form essential planks in the platform of evolutionary theory in general.)

Evolutionary theory does not mention or care how the Universe came into being or how life came into being. Evolutionary theory is simply not relevant to them.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

The second law presents an insurmountable problem to the concept of a natural, mechanistic process: (1) by which the physical universe could have formed spontaneously from nothing, and (2) by which biological life could have arisen and diversified (also spontaneously) from a non-living, inanimate world. (Both postulates form essential planks in the platform of evolutionary theory in general.)

I would say that (1) is entirely irrelevant to evolutionary theory. Please explain in your own words why you think otherwise.

I would also say that (2) is conflating abiogenesis with evolution, but nevertheless I cannot see any reason why the 2nd law presents any obstacle to it. Please, in your own words, expand a little on what exactly you think the "insurmountable problem" is.

 

[Marduk]

I posted this earlier
I liked this bit

Ever since Darwin, evolutionists have made excuses for why the world and our fossil museums are not overflowing with intermediates.

Pahu, is Dr Brown unaware of the large amount of transitional fossils (what Brown calls "intermediates") that now exist in our "fossil museums" which prove Macroevolution ?

how about you Pahu, can you give us some examples of non existent transitional fossils or not ?

Pahus response
None

going to answer these questions yet Pahu
or shall I start posting them over and over until you do

 

[temporalillusion]

Glenn R. Morton has a long history of making and repeating fallacious arguments against creationist scientists.

http://www.trueorigin.org/ca_jw_02.asp

Why do you trust the author of that link's judgment that Morton's arguments are fallacious and not other scientists' judgments that Morton's arguments are accurate and that Brown's hydroplate stuff is baloney?

 

[Marduk]

Was There Room?

Could the Ark have held all the animals? Easily.

It couldn't have held two of every insect, let alone animals and what about the fish Pahu, every salt water fish would have died, and every fresh water fish would have died. Don't you or brown know anything about fish habitats either.

Currently the superior species on earth would be water fowl.

and please please tell me how we got 7 billion people on earth from 8 people in less than 4500 years and also how many of those people have no genetic relation to semites

you can't can you, because its all bu****it

you won't read this link, thats fine because it will mean that everyone else who does isn't willfully ignorant like you and Walter Brown are !
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inbreeding_depression

Why do you trust the author of that link's judgment that Morton's arguments are fallacious and not other scientists' judgments that Morton's arguments are accurate and that Brown's hydroplate stuff is baloney?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delusion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paranoia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamentalism#Criticism_of_fundamentalist_positions

Sociologist of religion Tex Sample asserts that it is a mistake to refer to a Muslim, Jewish, or Christian Fundamentalist. Rather, a fundamentalist's fundamentalism is their primary concern, over and above other denominational or faith considerations

or basically, hes so deluded by his fear of an all powerful and angry God that he doesn't care about how people view him, because he thinks its more important to lie about reality than accept what is staring him in the face, because apparently, the bible teaches that being an ignorant liar and not caring about other peoples beliefs is the only way to get into heaven.

 

[Dinwar]

Also, the source of a scientific idea does not need to be scientifically derived.

Yeah, this is true. But the rest of it DOES. IE, the observations need to be objective, repeatable, and (at least in concept) falsifiable.

Was There Room?

No, and it's silly to imply that we think it's a small boat. Even a really, really BIG boat wouldn't be possible (the more animals you have the more food you'd need; also, there are a LOT of plants and animals). There are several problems that don't involve the size of the boat:

1) There's NO geological evidence for a world-wide flood in the past 6,000 (or even 4 billion) years. None.

2) Many plants cannot be transplanted. Meaning that once they're uprooted, they're dead. Doesn't matter how big your boat is--you can't keep these alive.

3) There's no way all the animals from all over the world were either (A) put onto a boat, or (B) taken off the boat. The ancients didn't know enough about sailing, and 4ka isn't NEARLY enough time for migration to spread animals all over the world.

4) The fish thing mentioned above.

There are others, but those are sufficient, without considering size constraints, to disprove the Flood story, and the Ark portion in particular.

 

[Foster Zygote]

The second law presents an insurmountable problem to the concept of a natural, mechanistic process: (1) by which the physical universe could have formed spontaneously from nothing, and (2) by which biological life could have arisen and diversified (also spontaneously) from a non-living, inanimate world.

No it does not. The second law of thermodynamics is no more a barrier to evolution than it is a barrier to your own development from a zygote.

 

[Craig4]

The Second Law states: Every system, left to its own devices, always tends to move from order to disorder, its energy tending to be transformed into lower levels of availability (for work), ultimately becoming totally random and unavailable for work.
...or...
The entropy of a closed system cannot decrease.

[/url]

You are incorrect. Organisms and ecosystems are not closed systems. They take in energy from the outside.

You are also incorrect where you say there would only be 16000 animals on the ark. There are over 10000 species of birds, over 5000 species of mammals, millions of species of insects and 50,000ish arachnids. Even with the isolation you talk about there is not enough time between the flood even and now for 16,000 animals or 8000 individual species to become millions of different species.

I'll grant it's possible that some fish that live in brackish water could have survived such a flood (there aren't that many of them though). However, you'd need tanks for two each of every exclusively fresh and salt water fish.

Again you are incorrect.

 

[Foster Zygote]

You are incorrect. Organisms and ecosystems are not closed systems. They take in energy from the outside.

You are also incorrect where you say there would only be 16000 animals on the ark. There are over 10000 species of birds, over 5000 species of mammals, millions of species of insects and 50,000ish arachnids. Even with the isolation you talk about there is not enough time between the flood even and now for 16,000 animals or 8000 individual species to become millions of different species.

I'll grant it's possible that some fish that live in brackish water could have survived such a flood (there aren't that many of them though). However, you'd need tanks for two each of every exclusively fresh and salt water fish.

Again you are incorrect.

As Tricky once noted: You couldn't get two of every animal on the ark if you froze and stacked them.

 

[Ladewig]

Was There Room?

Could the Ark have held all the animals? Easily. A few humans, some perhaps hired by others, could build a boat (a) large enough to hold representatives of every air-breathing land animal—perhaps 16,000 animals in all. (Of course, sea creatures did not need to be on the Ark. Nor did insects or amphibians. Only mammals, birds, reptiles, and humans. Much plant life survived the flood in a surprisingly simple way (b)). The Ark, having at least 1,500,000 cubic feet of space, was adequate to hold these animals, their provisions, and all their other needs for one year (c).

Since the flood, many offspring of those on the Ark would have become reproductively isolated to some degree due to mutations, natural genetic variations, and geographic dispersion. Thus, variations within a kind have proliferated. Each variation or species we see today did not have to be on the Ark. For example, a pair of wolflike animals were probably ancestors of the coyotes, dingoes, jackals, and hundreds of varieties of domestic dogs. (This is microevolution, not macroevolution, because each member of the dog kind can interbreed and has the same organs and genetic structure.) Could the Ark have held dinosaurs and elephants? Certainly, if they were young.

The Ark is frequently depicted as a small boat by those who have not bothered to check its dimensions. It was 300 cubits long, 50 cubits wide, and 30 cubits tall. While there were several ancient cubits (generally the distance from a man’s elbow to the extended fingers), a cubit was typically 1.5 feet or slightly longer. The 500-foot-long Ark would snugly fit in a football stadium and would be taller than a four-story building.

The Ark did not look like a boat. It had a flat bottom, was not streamlined, and had windows in its top. The flat bottom would have made loading on dry land possible. Streamlined shapes are important only for ships designed for speed and fuel efficiency—neither of which applied to the Ark. Windows in the side might be nice for the passengers (or for the proverbial giraffes to stick their necks out), but side windows limit the depth of submergence and the maximum load. Riding low in the water gives a boat great stability.

a. Actually, the Hebrew word for Ark (tebah) does not mean boat. It means “box,” “chest,” or “coffin.” In the Bible, tebah occurs in only one other context besides the flood. (The “ark of the covenant” is a different Hebrew word.) Moses was saved as a baby in a pitch-covered ark, tebah (Exodus 2:3,5). Sometimes tebah is translated into a different English word, such as basket. Moses, perhaps acting as an editor, wrote the flood account. Do you suppose that Moses had a special interest in describing how a few people, his ancestors and ours, were saved in a tebah—as he was?

b. At the onset of the flood, the powerful fountains of the great deep scattered seeds and spores throughout and even above the atmosphere. They undoubtedly settled through the atmosphere for many months afterward. [See http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/HydroplateOverview2.html#wp1197621] Fortunately, the 46,000-mile-long fountains were at almost all latitudes. Had they followed an east-west (latitudinal) path, such as along the preflood equator, many plants we now have would have become extinct.

c. The most detailed study of the many logistical requirements for the Ark and the number of animals on board is by John Woodmorappe, Noah’s Ark: A Feasibility Study (El Cajon, California: Institute for Creation Research, 1996).

The Seemingly Impossible Events of a Worldwide Flood Are Credible, If Examined Closely.

[From “in the Beginning” by Walt Brown http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/EarthSciences18.html#wp1798250]

Some poster may point out that a wooden ship of that size will break up in open seas (which is why no modern-day fundamentalist has ever built a sea-going replica of the Ark with the original dimensions and materials). But that's not the point, maybe God's powerful hand held the Ark together and His magical breath put all the animals into a dormant state. We cannot argue against that happening.

But we can use evidence to argue against a claim of a 6000 year-old Earth that was completely flooded 4500 years ago. We see evidence ranging from tree rings (which were already addressed in this thread and ignored by you) to a plot of the location of each of the Hawaiian islands (based on the drift rate of the Pacific plate) against the K/Ar radiometric dating (which again was already addressed in this thread and ignored by you) to the microscopic layers of Australian coral (from another Flood thread).

We see evidence in genealogy, microbiology, biology, pathology, zoology, astronomy, cosmology, chemistry, geology, and anthropology. You will have to provide evidence discounting the foundations of all these fields before you arrive at proof of a 6000-year-old Earth.

 

[Ladewig]

I haven't posted in this forum long enough to demonstrate the truth of my statement. If you visit other forums you will find that truth. You might go to:

and: http://pcmb.insightbb.com/index.php?topic=6272.0

I cannot access this thread. It requires registration.

http://www.factnet.org/vbforum/showthread.php?t=12334

A 40-page thread? We ask for an explanation and you link a 40-page thread!

where you will find the following scientists being quoted:


Scott Tremaine, David Stevenson, William R. Ward, Robin M. Canup, Fred Hoyle, Michael J. Drake, Kevin Righter, George W. Wetherill, Richard A. Kerr, Luke Dones, B. Zuckerman, Renu Malhotra, David W. Hughes, M. Mitchell Waldrop, Larry W. Esposito, Shigeru Ida, Jack J. Lissauer, Charles Petit, P. Lamy, L. F. Miranda, Rob Rye, William R. Kuhn, Carl Sagan, Christopher Chyba, Stephen W. Hawking, Don N. Page, Huw Price, Peter Coles, Jayant V. Narlikar, Edward R. Harrison, Govert Schilling, Eric J. Lerner, Francesco Sylos Labini, Marcus Chown, Adam Riess, James Glanz, Mark Sincell, John Travis, Will Saunders, H. C. Arp, Gerard Gilmore, Geoffrey R. Burbidge, Ben Patrusky, Bernard Carr, Robert Irion, Alan H. Guth, Alexander Hellemans, Robert Matthews, M. Hattori, Lennox L. Cowie, Antoinette Songaila, Chandra Wickramasinghe, A. R. King, M. G. Watson, Charles J. Lada, Frank H. Shu, Martin Harwit, Michael Rowan-Robinson, P. J. E. Peebles, Joseph Silk, Margaret J. Geller, John P. Huchra, Larry Azar, J. E. O’Rourke, Peter Forey, J. L. B. Smith, Bryan Sykes, Edward M. Golenberg, Jeremy Cherfas, Scott R. Woodward, Virginia Morell, Hendrick N. Poinar, Rob DeSalle, Raúl J. Cano, Tomas Lindahl, George O. Poinar, Jr., Monica K. Borucki, Joshua Fischman, John Parkes, Russell H. Vreeland, Gerard Muyzer, Robert V. Gentry, Jeffrey S. Wicken, Henry R. Schoolcraft, Thomas H. Benton, etc.

The above scientists were quoted from the following peer review science journals:

American journal of science
Astronomical journal
Astrophysics and space science
Astrophysical journal
Bioscience
Geology
Icarus
Journal of Theoretical Biology
Nature
New scientist
Physical review
Physical review d
Physical review letters
Science
Space science reviews
The American Journal of Science and Arts

Let's pick an easy one.
Please show me how any part of Stephen Hawkin's published works support the idea of a world-wide flood in the past 5000 years.

I think it is fair to ask this question because you have posted this information often enough that you must think it is an important part of the argument.

 

[laca]

Science is a field of study seeking to better understand natural phenomena through the use of observations and experiments. Scientific conclusions, while never final, must be based on evidence.

Also, the source of a scientific idea does not need to be scientifically derived. For example, Friedrich Kekulé discovered the ring structure of benzene in a dream in which a snake grabbed its tail. Kekulé’s discovery laid the basis for structural chemistry. Again, what is important is not the source of an idea, but whether all evidence supports it better than any other explanation. Science, after all, is a search for truth about how the physical universe behaves.

Yes. And how is ANY of that applicable to creationism? You did not answer any of my questions. So, again: what is scientific about creationism? What predictions does it make? How do you go about testing those predictions? Is it falsifiable? Unless and until someone can answer provide a scientific framework for creationism, it is not science. Sorry.

Therefore, let’s teach all the science.

Yeah, let's. And let's keep creationism where it belongs: in the annals of epic fail.